Ranjini Eye Care vs Intelligence Officer (IB)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is before this court challenging exhibit P5 order imposing penalty, raising many a ground including that no proper opportunity of hearing was obtained and for wrongly holding that no objections were submitted from the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on March 10, 2008 notice imposing penalty was issued, in response to which, objection was submitted on March 27, 2008, when another notice was issued on December 21, 2009. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for adjournment on December 31, 2009, despite which the impugned order was passed on February 8, 2010, which is not correct or sustainable; submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed and also based on the materials on record that the petitioner is not a registered dealer and that, on verification of the bills issued by the petitioner and other related documents, it is evident that the petitioner had supplied "medicines" and "intra occular lenses" for huge amounts and despite crossing the turnover limit, the petitioner had neither taken registration under the Act nor remitted the tax due on the turnover of the "medicines" and "intra occular lenses".

In response to the notice imposing penalty; the petitioner filed an application on December 31, 2009 and requested to grant 10 days'' time to submit objections. It is further stated in para 3 of the statement that the request was granted and the case was adjourned to January 12, 2010 and this was acknowledged by the representative of the petitioner. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner has been produced as annexure R1(a). However, the petitioner did not choose to file any objection, nor did file any further adjournment application. In the said circumstances the proceedings were finalized, passing final orders as borne by exhibit P5. It is also stated that the matter is squarely covered by the decisions reported in P.R.S. Hospital v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 KTR 176 Reported as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Another, . and Comtrust Eye Hospital Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer and Others, .

Incidentally, it is also brought to the notice of this court that, in respect of the penalty imposed for the year 2005-06 and also 2006-07, the petitioner had approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 4476 of 2009, where interference was declined. Thereafter, another Writ Petition was filed as W.P. (C) No. 7604 of 2009, and the coercive steps were intercepted for the time being. Later, the appellate authority, as per the order dated August 24, 2009, dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner, when the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 28010 of 2009, whereby the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the interlocutory application for stay, within the specified time, simultaneously intercepting the revenue recovery proceedings till such time. The Tribunal, as per order dated August 11, 2009, disposed of the petition for stay directing the petitioner to remit 1/3rd of the disputed amount and to furnish security for the balance amount within four weeks, despite which, the petitioner did not choose to comply with the same. So also, the petitioner has not chosen to take any registration under the Act. Various other relevant aspects have also been pointed out in the statement seeking to sustain exhibit P5. This court does not find it as a fit case to entertain the matter, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, if aggrieved in any manner. In the above circumstances, interference is declined. The writ petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right to pursue the statutory remedy.